1. A Pan London Learning Event
WELCOME
THE STRENGHTENING FAMILIES APPROACH TO CHAIRING CHILD PROTECTION CONFERENCES
A Pan London Learning Event

2. Introducing the model – Jacquie Burke – Wandsworth
What is the model
The model in the UK
The model as a whole service intervention
International context

3. Signs of Safety - what is the model?
The Signs of Safety approach to child protection casework was developed by Andrew Turnell and Steve Edwards in Western Australia in 1990s
The approach now being utilised across Western Australian and in jurisdictions in the U.S.A., Canada, U.K., Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Australia and Japan.

4. Signs of Safety – what is the model?
One of the greatest problems to bedevil child protection practice is that assessment and planning processes privilege the professional voice and erase the perspectives of children, parents and other family members.

5. Signs of safety – what is the model?
Focus on the assessment and not the tool
How you do the work WITH and not TO children and their families
Rigour and Grace - Clear idea of why you are doing what you are doing with families and a sense of connectedness to those families
If what you are doing is not working try something different
Your questions are you power tools – use them thoughtfully and purposefully

6. Core principles
Constructive working relationships between professionals and family members
Adopting a position of curiosity – as soon as a professional decides they know the truth they begin to ignore other new evidence
Putting the thinking back with practitioners
Children and families are the arbiters of whether what we do is working

7. Key disciplines
All statements must be made in simple everyday language
Statements must focus on specific observable behaviours and avoid value laden language
Skilful use of authority
Assessment as a work in progress rather than a set piece

8. Signs of Safety in the UK
Child protection conferences barely changed since late 1980s.
Not the registration that protects the child.
THANK YOU WEST BERKSHIRE.
Engaging parents as part of the solution.
CP process test of ‘willingness to co-operate’.
Parents freeze at decision to make a CP plan.
Professionals head for the door!

9. Child Protection Conferences
Layout
Refreshments
Chair facilitates and challenges
Family speaks first and gets opportunity to respond
Jargon free
Clear and transparent mapping of concerns and strengths
Risk statement
Plan – focus on bringing about change
Decision last

10. The conference room

11. What information is collected
What are we worried about?
Harm/danger
Complicating factors
Grey areas
What is going well?
Strengths
Safety
What will we do next?
The plan

12. Whole Service Approach
6 authorities in the SE working with Resolutions Consultancy
Whole service approach – training from DCS to social workers
Safety planning, 3 houses, words and pictures
Multi-agency training
Appreciative Enquiry
Consistent language across the partnership that is jargon free and represents a holistic view of family functioning and child safety.

13. Whole Service Approach
Needs senior management buy-in
Values critical thinking and challenge
Lets go of the easy answer to wicked problems
Encourages not the assertion of a definitive truth but asking penetrating rigorous questions focused on the five domains.
The senior management solution of making fast judgements, giving strong direction and what needs to happen can undermine and stunt worker development.

14. Western Australia Year 1
1/3 on board, 1/3 on the fence 1/3 sitting it out
Language, concepts penetrating, lots of enthusiasm and drive visible
But, a lot of old wine in new bottles

15. Western Australia Year 2 2/3 on board
Staff survey – 64% with greater job satisfaction
families’ better understanding of issues and expectations
Framework providing clarity and focus for child protection work
Better partnership working
Better decision making

16. Western Australia Year 3
Growth in children in care reduced from 13% to 5%
Assessments leading to intensive family support increasing from 2.5% to 13%
Assessments leading to protection and care applications reduced (reduced 24%)
Recidivism no change at 6.9%
Endless challenge to build practice depth and skill

17. Model fidelity?
The Signs of Safety approach should not be regarded as a fixed product (like say a box of cornflakes) rather it continues to evolve.

18. Implementing the approach- The Barnet Experience
Liz Shaw

19. Why did we want to do it?
Learning from the Brent experience-message it is do-able, didn’t rely on model fidelity, can bespoke
Engagement from our group of chairs
A person centred no brainer - better parent participation
Chance to modernise CPCs - improve analysis and avoid narrative in info share and planning
Potential efficiency savings – admin time and almost free to do
Minutes template refreshing, LCPP compliant

20. How did we do it?
Project plan to Barnet SCB- they held authority for model, logo on templates etc
Preparation briefings for all agencies
Pilot approved sample CPCs- started end 2011
Evaluation event Feb 2012
Pilot rolled out to all CPCs April 2012
Second evaluation event June 2012
SCB approved model ongoing basis Sept 2012

21. Involving Partners Broad consensus to do it
Leads for agencies cascaded info and fed into planning group
Chairs prepared pilot practitioners
Evaluation sought from attendees and leads
Discussions on multi agency forms and templates eg police/GPs use alternative/CS use core asst

22. Preparing Parents
Current leaflet didn’t conflict with model but insert added in simple language
Chairs called all parents for initial pilot
Feedback form from parents after all CPCs
Props for parents eg to enable them to take notes

23. Involving the Child
Have funding for advocacy for CPCs but still in tendering process
Created a specific column on white board for the child’s wishes and feelings to keep the child “in the room”
Model has not increased participation of children as yet

24. Practical considerations
Don’t use electronic white board. Have trad. white boards to view all info “at a glance”
Minute takers attend and can type direct into minutes template
Minutes format being loaded onto ICS to eliminate separate word version

25. Evaluation - themes Practicalities – physical use of space
Involvement of child/parent
Info sharing under 6 dimensions
Risk analysis – scaling
The Plan
Thresholding/decision making
Recording/minutes

26. Evaluation cont Feedback from partners positive
Parents prefer it to the old model
Chairs like it but meetings are more physically demanding and intense
Amendments to tools eg scaling exercise, order of phases of the CPC
Are there any differences in style of CP plans eg SMARTer?
Has it cut our numbers of plans?